Labour MP David Clark has admitted he doesn’t know how much it will cost employers if the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour, despite sponsoring a bill to do just that.

Of course not. Why worry about the cost!

I supported the Mondayisation bill as the impact on wages was minimal – around 0.2%, and it was standardising the practice of Mondayisation. An 11% increase in the minimum wage though is exponentially larger, and is calculated to cost around 6,000 jobs. That is too much in one go.

Share this:

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 31st, 2012 at 10:00 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

207 Responses to ““Labour MP clueless on minimum wage price tag””

“Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : … The Budget does set out the returns and costs from the mixed-ownership programme. Ministers have since made the decision in principle to offer a loyalty bonus. We are taking advice on how to treat this in the Government’s books—for example, whether we need to make a separate appropriation for it.”

Why worry about whether we need to make a separate appropriation for it? This guy is a supposed financial whizz, but is looking more and more like Rob Muldoon. At least David Clark isn’t a member of cabinet.

The idiot voters who support this all think it is a silver bullet – they say “If I was on $15 an hour things would be sweet” – and don’t realize that the cost of everything will increase, and that there is a chance they’ll lose their jobs. And then when there is inflation of everything as a result, they will start whinging again about how the minimum wage should be $20.

Clark has come up with a number on expected costs now – $427m – but it’s not clear what that includes and what it doesn’t. He hasn’t responded yet to a request for clarification.

Here are some of his other explanations:

– Increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour would ensure hard-working families could put healthy food on the table.
– A higher minimum wage encourages employers to engage in industries with high productivity. It means employers can’t get wealthy off the back of cheap labour.
– An economist could be eligible for a Nobel prize if he or she could establish a direct link between putting up the minimum wage and increasing unemployment.
– The proposed change will not affect most employers and smart employers who already pay a living wage will be better off as it will stop less scrupulous firms undercutting them.

This guy is a dreamer if he thinks it wont affect most employers. “Most” of NZ employers are small businesses, employing 20 or less workers. And unfortunately a significant number of these are earning between the current minimum wage and $16.

But of course if you raise the price floor to $16, it starts the bracket creep. Everyone earning $16 will now be ‘minimum wage’ and because they are more productive than a minimum wage worker these have to go up.
So I have four choices:
1. pay the increase in wages out of my own pocket (direct cost on me)
2. increase my prices (direct cost to my customers)
3. pressure my suppliers to reduce costs (direct cost to my business partners)
4. reduce staff volumes/hours (direct cost to my employees)

Number 3 is unlikely, as they will be feeling their own wage cost pressures, and their suppliers costs. So the end result is likely to be a combination of 1, 2 & 4.

The actual cost is higher in the end, because the demand created by increased earnings across NZ will be insufficient to compensate for the reduction in demand caused by higher prices.

As others have noted, it’s not just the minimum wage that will be affected. All my 40+ staff earn more than the MW; some substantially more. But if the MW goes up to $15/hr, then as a good employer I will be honour-bound to give a pay rise to all of my staff, based on the percentage increase in the MW. Otherwise there is no relativity between jobs, and qualifications, merit, attitude and performance pay go out the window.

If the MW went up overnight to $15/hour, the cost to my business would be somewhere in the region of $150k per annum. We simply don’t have that kind of slack in the business to pay increases of that amount, so we would have to make savings. Wages and salaries are our single biggest budget cost, so there’s every likelihood that jobs would go. Who wins then?

clearly hamnida has never been in business or ever had to actually value work, which means hes probably a public servant.

there are plenty of jobs worth less than $13.50 an hour.

i would not value someone doing my scanning and filing at much more than $10 an hour, and would really only hire a student or teenager to do it. however i am not allowed to pay what the job is worth, so the job does not exist, and i and my practice manager absorb the work into our normal day.

you can live on $13.50 an hour if you need to, its called discipline and only a whiny lefty would demand that others just give them more money with no reciprocity in terms of production. i would question the person who stays on a min wage job for more than a year, what are they doing to upskill themselves to make themself attractive to employers at higher paying jobs?

Klakky’s $15 minimum is in fact far more than $18 when to the base cost holidays 8%, ACC 3%, Sick 2%, Kiwisaver3-4%, and Stat Hols 2%, PLUS admin costs, are added.
Did someone say this clucker has passed some theoreticals in economics?
DUMB!

No mention of the 600 odd complaints about companies not meeting their minimum wage obligations. Presumably DPF thinks it’s OK that some companies treat their workers like dirt and pay below the minimum wage.

those employees should quit and go somewhere else. of course one has to wonder why they agreed to work for less than minimum wage? maybe they realised that say $11 an hour is better than $0 an hour from having no work.

no one corralled those workers and made them become employees, so why are they hanging around if they are being underpaid and treated like dirt? or what are the odds that as usual you are talking crap.

your pathetic attempt to distract with the chch reference is utterly irrelevant. chch is being funded by the govt via tax taken from workers. the minimum wage mostly impacts on small businesses, you know private businesses.

John Key has a “broad sense” of the Christchurch rebuild. I’m sure that David Clark has a similar broad sense. Mr Farrar expects Clark to know the exact figure for an increase in the minimum wage but apparently doesn’t have the same expectations of the PM. Should we be surprised?

Hamfisted: “If you have to pay someone under $15 an hour, I would question if you should be in business at all….”

This can only be uttered by an economic dunce.

Do you actually think before you hit ‘Submit Comment’ or are you simply on a mission to prove to everyone that you are a total moron? Because on the second option – congratulations. Mission accomplished.

I suspect you think a cure for everything would be to raise the Minimum Wage to $25.

“John Key has a “broad sense” of the Christchurch rebuild. I’m sure that David Clark has a similar broad sense. Mr Farrar expects Clark to know the exact figure for an increase in the minimum wage but apparently doesn’t have the same expectations of the PM. Should we be surprised?

I think that there is a slight difference between having a “broad sense” of the cost of acquiring something like 840 properties from multiple vendors, particularly where the whole notion of “market value” has been knocked to hell and gone as a result of the earthquake damage on the one hand and measuring or estimating overall costs of moving the minimum wage by a measurable amount. I doubt whether Mr Clarke as even a remote idea of the follow-on implications.
Key’s problem is that if the announces how much money he has set aside to cover the costs of acquisition, there will be those who measure their asking price to suit and there will be those who will hold out for more. I do not see it as a particularly smart move for example for the government to ask, openly, how many properties they can buy four $1,000,000,000.

That’s blanket nonsense. There are many possible scenarios, like
– where you live (some parts of the country have much lower living costs than others)
– who you live with (an 18 year old living at home with parents may have very low overheads)
– if you own your own home and have little or no mortgage
– retired people supplementing their super
– the second income in a family supplementing
– young people sharing a flat
etc etc

There are three further points. First, you’ve completely misrepresented the inference to be drawn from those comments from Key. It was perfectly clear that he had an indication of the likely order of cost as would be expected given that negotiations must take place over pricing. Second, the calculation of the impact of increasing the SMW, including the kick on effect from consequential increases for those above the SMW in order to maintain relativity, is capable of calculation from current economic and statistical data without the uncertainty of a bargaining process. Third Clark said he had no idea.

So what the fuck is the relevance of your completely pointless posts other than allowing you to get some dirty water off your chest?

> you’ve completely misrepresented the inference to be drawn from those comments from Key

You’ve completely missed the point of my comment. Key doesn’t know the cost of the rebuild, any more than he knows how much the sale of state assets will bring in. He might have a rough idea, but he could be out by tens of millions of dollars.

As an aside, the benefits of increasing the minimum wage are many and have been well-documented. I suggest you acquaint yourself with those benefits before commenting any further.

Clark appears to be struggling with understanding business fundamentals – and he seems to dismiss Dunedin business and employer spokesmen as opposing politicians. Doesn’t look great for MP/business relations in his electorate.

ross those ‘benefits’ are made up and are always at the expense of those jobs that disapear or never get created.

becuase you cannot see the jobs that dont exist, morons like you seem to imply there is no negative impact. moron.

well here is your proof. as an employer i would happily hire someone for $10 an hour to do filing, scanning, photocopying and general dog work. they would be treated well but the job is basic. after a year they would likely move on once they had enough skills and i would hire the next person who wants a leg up, or, by them freeing me and my more qualified staff up to do more productive work we might have made enough more money to pay them more.

but becuase i would have to pay someone $13.50 an hour (actually at least 15 after holiday pay, kiwisaver etc) its not worth it, so the job does not exist.

try paying wages out of your own pocket one day, and you might actually get an idea of what its like to value a job.

Ah, I see, so he should have dusted off his crystal ball and at the very least had a QS cost the buildings that haven’t even been designed yet or the land that hasn’t even been purchased yet. So he could be out by tens of millions of dollars!! Wow, out of a bill of $10b plus?? Ever built a house ross? I mean seriously, do you have any idea at all?

Fortunately, I don’t have to waste my time looking at some report written to justify a political conclusion because I live in the real world where people who actually own and run businesses and assume the concommittant financial risks and responsibilities respond to costs by making simple decisions such as: fuck it, I won’t hire that person.

You should try it ross. Get out from behind your keyboard and put it all on the line to start and run your own business. Then pay some smelly deadshit who can’t even be bothered to turn up to work regularly $15+ an hour for doing some job that’s worth $10 an hour.

Hamnida and Ross69 – why dont you and your socialist friends, Using YOUR money show us how easy it is to start up and run a businees doing all the things you think a business should do,
-increase wages,
-increase maternity leave,
-give more holidays,
-pay more council rates
-employ the unemployable with no 90day no questions asked trial
– employ more people
-pay more taxes to support beneficearies
– increased insurance costs
– take the finanacial risks
– work the hours required to get the business established for 2-3 years
– etc etc.

It amazes me how people who live off other peoples money such as, Career politicians, acedemics, public servents etc are so good at deciding how other peoples hard earned money should be distributed – and yet dont have the guts, desire, drive to get off thier arses and practice what they preach – and like I asked, show us how it can be done – lead the way especially the politicians who have made good money and investments to feather thier own nests. PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH

ross, youve outdone yourself:”Presumably women who are beaten by their partners should just leave too.”

What, in your world they should stay? What a great idea. Youve obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with domestic violence. So, youre a typical whining theoretical socialist telling us what to do based on no real experience.

Yes, I know you’d like there to be no consequences for unscrupulous employers who flout the law, and I also know your contempt for workers.

By “unscrupulous employers”, do you mean people like Matt McCarten from the Unite Union who withheld PAYE, Kiwisaver and Student Loan deductions taken from his employees over a period of 18 months between October 2007 and March 2009, a total of in excess of $134,000?

> I can’t see how a minimum wage of $13.50 closes the wage gap with Australia

Well, it was impossible for John Key to pretend we could close the wage gap with Aussie after Bill English trumpeted low wages as giving NZ a competitive advantage! I just don’t know why the Tories try to pretend they’re a friend of workers…

A higher minimum wage will of course take pressure off WFF and the welfare state. Those earning more in wages require less State assistance. I would’ve thought the Right would be delighted with such an outcome. Why can’t the Right at least adopt a consistent position?

Cut the size of the state to the bone, sell-off the state liabilities and free taxpayers from the yoke of subsiding them…and cut taxes down to match…… more money in peoples pockets,far more productive market activity not choked by repressive regulation,more jobs created…..problems solved.

So you acknowledge that being on the minimum wage isn’t enough to support a family?

Probably not…but then there is no right to be able to raise a family at other peoples expense either…..so if you aren’t in a position to fund said family via your own efforts then don’t even think about having one…

@ Hamnida; where have you been hiding? The tax-dodging of Matt McCarten is both a matter of public record, and of much debate in forums such as this. In addition to the $134k Unite owed the IRD, McCarten’s own company Unite Social Services Limited was put into liquidation owing IRD $150,750, as per the Stuff story that Wayne91 has linked to at 2.54pm.

So yes; it’s a big claim to make, but it is one that is easily substantiated. Especially damaging for McCarten was the liquidator’s report that there was “a failure to provide for taxation”, something which the IRD regards as an aggravating feature.

McCarten’s carelessness with his taxes was in the period before and after the 2008 General Election. It would be easy to reach the conclusion that McCarten was more interested in pushing Unite’s political agenda accompanied by large amounts of money, rather than paying to IRD the money that he had deducted from his employees’ pay. I’d say that Matt McCarten definitely fits the bill as an “unscrupulous employer”; wouldn’t you?

A wage is a cost…..and the higher the cost of something the less you try to use of it…….get it Hamnida? If you artificially price labour above its actual market value then it won’t be taken on and instead machines or already employed workers will take up the slack.

Sonny B – A basic understanding. The employer collects PAYE on behalf of the employee and forwards it to the IRD. Income tax is what the employee pays. PAYE is the term to describe how the employer transfers it to the IRD. I wouldn’t say I’m an accountant or tax expert, but know a little about the tax system.

McCarten has been paying off 18 months worth of unpaid PAYE off at $8k per month. In addition, IRD put his own company (McCarten was the sole director of Unite Social Services Ltd) into liquidation with debts to the IRD in excess of $150k.

So I will repeat my question both for you and ross69; is Matt McCarten an “unscrupulous employer”?

Unfortunately this slight hole in the revenue was brought about by his inexperience and pre-occupation with instructing the ghost writers of his Sunday column. He had no idea that when you collect money as agent for the Government, you should put it to one side so that it can then be paid instead of spending it. He knows better now and I’m sure that he would us to move on as he has no doubt done himself.

Hamnida ‘Perhaps this is not surprising given their lower IQs’ well that statement really sums up the left. Nothing but insults and bullshit arguments. The only way they can win an argument is by getting nasty. Mallard is a hero of the left.

So Hamnida do you think the minimum wage should be $20 an hour? If not then please explain why. Also do you have any experience running a business? If not then please explain how you have the ‘IQ’ to know there will not be negative consequences if the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour during the worst recession ever seen (i.e. job losses). I mean there have been plenty of ppl on this post who run businesses and explain the consequences. What makes you think you are more qualified to argue this then them??

Get it through your thick fucking head. He spent money that didn’t below to him.

What would your response be to the lawyer who spends money from a client trust account? You go to settle your house and find your money is gone, along with your lawyer to parts unknown. “Ooooh, nice lawyer, but just not good with other people’s money. Bit impulsive with his travel arrangements too.”??? [That was idiot font BTW]

So if your boss took money from you each week which should have been paid to the taxman on the 20th of the month following, then went off and spent it on something else, you’d cut him some slack, would you?

Bear this in mind Hamnida; any of those Unite Union employees who were having money deducted for Kiwisaver have lost forever the interest that might have been gained on their deductions and the employer contributions over an 18-month period. That interest can never be recovered. If that was me doing that to one of my employees, the likes of McCarten would be beating my door down.

We seem to have the usual nonsense on the minimum wage. Empirical studies of the effects of the minimum wage are a bit mixed in their results, and possibly reflect the biases of various authors more than anything else.
Everything else being equal, an increase in the minimum wage will have some negative effect on employment. The debate really needs to centre on the extent to which that actually happens, especially when only modest increases are contemplated. There are many other factors that play a part in creating or sustaining employment.
I prefer to see the minimum wage as part of a set of mandatory conditions that support employment. These include health and safety laws, minimum employment standards and bargaining laws. One could argue that all of these things create contraints on employment, bit it is a trade-off that we choose to make in many situations.

hamnida, “I don’t believe there should be a minimum wage, I think all New Zealanders should earn the same wage or salary.”

Youve been asleep for 100 years right – you missed the downfall of the USSR. Utopia died, and its stinking corpse is one of the most corrupt societies on the face of the planet, its doomed experiment with an idiotic version of a deeply flawed free market model ruined by criminals. Had they tried real capitalisim, the outcome might have been different.

Yes, the same wage or salary. Total equality. An acknowledgement that New Zealanders are motivated by good not money. That you obtain higher qualifications to assist others, not yourself. That the proceeds of a successful business are spread amongst all who contributed to the profit. A society where every child has the same access to health and education regardless of parental wealth.

Yes, multiple employees. 15 – 25 per site, 60 in total. Wage range at the time $8.50 an hour to $50,000 per annum salary. It would have been better if everyone was on say $14 an hour. The free market meant middle managers wanted $50,000.

“Yes, the same wage or salary. Total equality. An acknowledgement that New Zealanders are motivated by good not money. That you obtain higher qualifications to assist others, not yourself. That the proceeds of a successful business are spread amongst all who contributed to the profit. A society where every child has the same access to health and education regardless of parental wealth.”

You really do not understand economics do you. That has to be one of the stupidist comments I have ever seen here.

Hamnida you cannot be fucking serious. Everyone paid the same???? Jesus crist I cannot believe there are people out there who actually believe that sort of shit would work. So a doctor should be paid the same as a Labourer in your eyes?? bugger me.

“I advocate for a society based on total equality, nothing like Pol Pot’s murderous regime”

What you fail to understand is that total equality is not possible. Everyone is different, and has different needs and goals. Thus the only way to try and create a totally equal society is through the brute force of state power. Thus the comparison with murderous communist regimes is appropriate.

Because most of these people are not only insecure but envious, mediocre characters, without any talent.
They aspire to equalise us all by applying the lowest common denominator. Misery willing to spread misery.

I admire DPF for his blog and allowing freedom of speech, but question the wisdom around using David Garrett to write a column on justice. Why not get Max Bradford to write a piece on privatisation lowering power prices. Or Roger Douglas writing an article on how wealth has “trickled down” in NZ.

@ Hamnida – David Garrett may have skeletons in his closet, but he achieved more in half a term in Parliament than most of the time-servers there will achieve in their lifetimes. If even one life is saved because a criminal was kept in prison because of the Three Strikes law, then David Garrett will leave a more enduring legacy than any of us.

Kiwi 1. Works hard at school, goes onto University and obtains a worthwhile degree (not one that results in him being a social worker) he then spends the next 30 years working 50-60 hours a week along with raising a family and paying a shit load of taxes.
Come his early 50’s he has a nice nest egg saved, his house is freehold and he has managed to buy himself a batch/cribb for holidays or weekends away.

Kiwi 2. Fucks around at school, eventually leaves with no qualifications and ends up working in a series of dead end jobs with no real future. He makes no effort to better himself and along the way manages to pop out four or five kids. He pays no net tax yet he still finds it hard to make ends meet even with working for families. Come his mid fifties he is pissed off at what others have and what he does not have.

Kiwi 3. Also fucks around at school, he also leaves with no qualifications and goes from one dead beat job to another until some time in his late 20’s he wakes up. At this stage he decides that there must be better things in life for him so he puts his head down and invests in himself. He works his arse off, he learns, he studies and he makes himself into a highly employable person. As a result of this he reaches his mid fifties in a far better financial state that he would have had he not changed his ways.

Now Haminda, most Kiwis fall into one of those three groups….and you want all of them to earn the same wage?

What you propose is fucking madness, only a complete moron or an idealogical youth would think that it is as simple as what you suggest. I suspect you are only a kid, one that has told a few lies here about the businesses you have owned but I am prepared to give you a pass on that. What I cannot forgive is how mind numbingly stupid your idea is, it has been tried in other places and failed miserably …what part of that do you not get?

Well the offer is there. I have a manifesto. It doesn’t read like anything Roger Douglas has written. The man should be on trial for treason, totally destroyed NZ society. Lange should have been onto him much earlier.

Take me, for example. I’m self-employed. I do web development and server support freelance for a very limited number of customers. I also have my own websites and projects that make up over half my income from selling advertising etc. If I was told I could only earn some maximum arbitrary amount of money, then guess what? I wouldn’t bother earning any money over that amount. Why bother?

The free market meant it was not possible to pay everyone the same in those businesses, as middle managers demanded more money or they would leave.

It is not the free market as such Hamnida, but people’s expectations that proved that your utopia is not a viable proposition. The free market makes it easier for people to trade their skills, expertise and labour – it doesn’t drive their expectations that they should be rewarded according to the value they each bring; that is their appreciation of worth.

Strange that a neolib would suggest Animal Farm. Maybe you should read it again.

Given that the novel was about how the socialist utopia was actually no better than the fascist dictatorship it overthrew, I think perhaps you are the one who should be reading it again.

But you see, if everyone is working, they don’t need my handouts. I already “contribute to society” in the taxes I pay, and the $200k or so I’ve brought into the country in export sales in the last few years from my own hard work. Cutting me off at some arbitrary limit really doesn’t incentivise me to work harder.

Everyone earning the same is a nice ideal, but it doesn’t work in real life, as we have seen (Communist Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and others). The society we have is far from perfect, but we have a few rich people, a few poor people, and a whole bunch of people in the middle. The only way to achieve true equality is to effectively make everyone poor.

I need to find that study where the professor decided to mark all his students the same grade based on the average. It’s a great read. Will have a look for it and post here if I can find it.

Interviewed on regional TV tonight David Clark makes a nod towards being concerned about struggling businesses but mostly more of the same:

In New Zealand we have a lot of people who are living in poverty who shouldn’t be living in poverty, in my view, the minimum wage is currently $13.50 an hour and people who have young children spend more than half of their income putting a healthy meal on the table every night. It shouldn’t be like that.

We are concerned about employers who are struggling to meet their wage bills, that is a real concern for some, but to be frank, Australia seems to do ok paying a minimum wage close to $20.

What it does when you raise it gradually is it makes sure that employers are putting the most productive practices in place and making sure they get the most out of their businesses, and smart employers tend to do well even when there’s a higher minimum wage.

There’s a good chance the story is complete BS, but it’s what would happen if a professor really did do this:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little…

The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

Not force them to work together. Here is what I would do if the professor said the same grade for all essays (assuming a class of 20, 2000 word essay):

1. After the lecture brief on the essay question, wait behind and call all the students to a meeting.
2. Separate the students in four groups.
3. Five members in each group – one writes the introduction and paragraph one, three take two paragraphs in sequence each, and the final member writes the last paragraph and conclusion.
4. Each group elects a leader and attends a leaders’ meeting to agree on the best overall essay.
5. The best essay is submitted by all students and achieves a high mark.

Not a zero sum game – the students work together to produce the optimum result.

The professor is a typical neolib who thinks people can be divided and forced to compete for no reason. Like 80 people turning up for the same job interview at McDonalds and fighting for a minimum wage job. People can achieve far more when the work together.

You’re a funny man/woman. I spent 3 years at Auckland University and 1.5 years at AIT. Only once was I unfortunately subjected to a group assignment. Guess who did all the work? It was the person who wanted the good grade, i.e. me. The others were a bunch of hopeless slackers. If it wasn’t for me we probably would have failed. (Now that I think about it, I seem to remember the same thing happening in another annoying group assignment at high school).

Honestly, if you’re all going to get the same grade for the same essay, why would bother trying? Hand in a blank piece of paper and you’re going to get the same grade as everybody else. Oh wait, now everybody handed in a blank sheet of paper so the “best” essay is a combined 5 pieces of blank paper. Never mind, everyone gets the same grade. Of course it means you all get a FAIL. But then that doesn’t matter, because we’re all going to get paid the same no matter what effort we put in.

I haven’t commented on Kiwiblog for years, but you’re comedy gold. I’ve been enjoying the other posts you’ve been commenting on too. Shame no one has bitten yet on your comment about Peter Jackson being a class traitor.

I seem to recall it was a bunch of evil socialists who set up free health care and education, provided low cost housing to those in need. A comprehensive social welfare system was set up to provide for those in need, which included the elderly, the sick, the widowed and unemployed. The 40 hour week was introduced by those nasty socialists!! The Tories should stick to what they know best – greed.

Those are all good things ross, and they were (and still are) the right things to have been done. I just disagree that paying everyone exactly the same amount of money no matter what they do is a good thing. It would lead to everyone being poor because there is no incentive to achieve.

While 50 hours might be pushing it (I’d say it’s more likely to be 37.5 after the .5 hour unpaid break), have you not heard of flatting with other people? It’s not hard to live off that sort of rent if you choose the right people and the right place. Look here’s a $50 p/w place in AKL if you want it http://www.trademe.co.nz/flatmates-wanted/auction-286342635.htm

ross69 (633) Says:
July 31st, 2012 at 8:14 pm
I seem to recall it was a bunch of evil socialists who set up free health care and education, provided low cost housing to those in need. A comprehensive social welfare system was set up to provide for those in need, which included the elderly, the sick, the widowed and unemployed. The 40 hour week was introduced by those nasty socialists!! The Tories should stick to what they know best – greed.

These are all terrible, terrible things that hurt that marginalise the poor for the sake of controlling the middle classes.

All the government needs to do is provide security, infrastructure, and transfer payments for distress.

Socialised healthcare and education are vile practises and should not be a feature of a civilised society.

I do not have many peers that work under 50 hours a week, when I am trying to get ahead i work 60+.

And I have been paying less than $90 rent the last 2 years, there are many options on trademe and I took far from the cheapest one. Now a couple on the minimum wage could make serious savings with the rent they could get away with.

Geez I earnt sweet FA when I was a AIT studying but I still managed to flat with my girlfriend and a mate in Parnell in Auckland and still afford food, the rent, power, phone, internet, payments on my computer (very expensive back then but needed for my study), vehicle expenses, insurance, and a 6 pack on Fridays. And we were quite happy, thank you very much.

Hamnida, you’re either a wind up or an idiot. I’m not sure I necessarily agree with Sonny’s policy, but the extra $$ is fronted up by the parents out of their own pocket, instead of via taxes. Let’s say it costs 8k to educate a child per year. Parents on $20 gets 8k so don’t have to spend any of their own money. Parents on $80k get 2k so have to “top it up” to 6k out of their own money rather than via the taxes that would have otherwise been taken from them.

I think a better idea would free education for all children, regardless of parental income.

You mean like we have now?

Well duh.

Might be true if all schools were funded the same. But they aren’t. Some are expected to take up the shortfall by paying quite high “donations” because of our ability to donate more aka the decile system. Never mind that we already donate more via our taxes.

Might be true if all schools were funded the same. But they aren’t. Some are expected to take up the shortfall by paying quite high “donations” because of our ability to donate more aka the decile system. Never mind that we already donate more via our taxes.

Well who cares Chris. Manolo’s got the right idea. If your parents were too stupid or foolish to earn enough cash to give you a jolly good education, then that’s their fault and your misfortune isn’t it. It’s certainly not society’s fault.

No-one owes you a living, or an upbringing for that matter.

To the extent we’re civilised, we give parents a modicum of support but fact is, these days, parents don’t even pull their own weight in most cases and when bad things happen, all the lefty hand-wringers turn around and blame the nasty old taxpayer (i.e. you and I) for not being generous enough when in fact the real problem was, someone’s arse didn’t get a good enough kicking in parenthood school. But no, lefty fools and fuckwits don’t look at that side of it, ever. Never ever ever.

Hence our hopelessly parlous society with dependents with their hands out all over the place and not a one in sight saying: “Stand on your own two feet lads, stand tall, stand proud. You can do it.”

No. None of that.

Instead it’s all about:

“Oh dear. You poor widdle victim. Here let me cuddle you and wrap you in cotton wool and take all your pain away because you’re a victim!!! Yes. It’s NOT your fault!!! No!!! There are big bad meanies out there (I can’t see them but I know they’re there) and they just want to hurt you and stop you from being happy and singing tra la la la la la like it’s your HUMAN WIGHT to!!!!!! and they won’t let you!!! Oh Dear!!!!!!!!~!

And that’s what really happens on a daily basis in our society today. And you know what. It’s all the fault of stupid fucking morons like Hamnida and all his lefty mates in Wellington. Yes, it is.

Chris – so the richer you are (or more disposable income in this case), the better the education for your children.

No! Your comprehension is reprehensible. Under Sonny’s idea, the more you earn the less you get from the govt, so you have to top it up with your own money, which would mean less taxes paid overall. I’m not going to explain again. Note, I didn’t say I agreed with the policy. FWIW I think education (up to and including secondary level anyway) should be free and all school pupils should be funded the same amount so there should be no need for “voluntary donations”.

I have no problem with people wanting to pay for private schooling, but I think they are fools to do so, at least at the primary school level. My sister has her kids at private primary education and guess what, the classes have just as many kids in them as ours do and they still hit them up for extra fundraising over and above the ridiculous fees they pay.

I could never understand Spanish chris. I’m not very big on minority stuff like that. Some people who know me well are surprised when I reveal that side of me. Normally I’m so caring and sensitive, you see…

Hooray, and while I’ve been productively commenting on Kiwiblog, I’ve finished a documentation project that’s been long the making. Of course, if I was just being paid the same as everyone else, why would I bother spending my evening in this way?

Chris – I am glad you don’t agree with the voucher policy. It would result in the $20,000 a year parent spending their $8,000 voucher and a $150,000 a year parent sending little Matthew off to an $18,000 a year school. There is a reason why ACT promote such a system, it benefits the rich racist pricks.

Dear oh dear. Matthew’s parents would be paying $16k for his education when they could pay $6k for a perfectly good education (assuming at 150k his parents get $2k). Chanelle’s $20k parents would be paying $0. BTW, Sweden, that supposedly socialist nirvana, uses a voucher system. And I didn’t say I didn’t agree with it; just that “I didn’t say I agreed with it” which if you were clever enough would mean you realised it’s not the same thing. More of that reprehensible comprehension.

Not sure in all the noise above whether anyone has called you on your horseshit apples and oranges comparison. Mondayisation raises the costs for ALL workers so your “0.2%” is not at all comparable with an increase in the minimum wage. Both are stupid ideas leading New Zealand down a Grecian path

A bit late to the party on this, but there is something worth noting IMHO.

Hamnida talks about “one wage for all”. Think that’s nuts? Well remember, this is not so far from what John Minto has proposed – namely, that nobody in New Zealand should take home more than $250,000 pa. John Minto would have a 100% tax rate for any earnings above $250,000. At the time of this interview, John Minto stated that this was a draft Mana policy.

Never, never forget this – John Minto and Mana do not want anybody earning over $250,000. Doesn’t matter how much risk you take, how big you grow your business, how many people you provide employment for – if Mana have their way, you will NOT BE ALLOWED TO EARN OVER $250,000, EVER.